ORDER : The petitioner who involved in 3 cases viz., 1.C.C.No.2 of 1994, 2. C.C.No.3 of 1994 and 3. C.C.No.4 of 1994 and was convicted under sections 409 I.P.C., 409 I.P.C. and 420 I.P.C. Respectively, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 9 months each, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore. In the appeals preferred by the petitioner in 1.C.A.No.399 of 2004, 2.C.A.No.400 of 2004 and 3. C.A. No. 401 of 2004, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. II, Coimbatore, has reduced the sentences to one year R.I. each and confirmed the fine amounts. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for direction to run the sentences concurrently in all three cases. 2. In this connection a Division Bench of this Court in K. Arasan and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police and others reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 5335, has held that under 427 Cr.P.C., a discretion may be given to the subsequent convicting Court to consider and order the sentences to run concurrently with the previous sentence awarded to the same accused. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: “12. (1) .... .... ..... .... .... (2) .... .... .... .... .... A cursory reading of the above said provision makes it crystal clear that as per the said Section, a direction may be given for a sentence awarded in the subsequent case to run concurrently with the previous sentence. There may be a situation that the subsequent convicting Court was not appraised about the existence of the previous sentence and as such, the said Court convicting the same Accused in the latter or subsequent case, may not be in a position to consider the relief to be given to the said Accused by invoking the provision under Section 427, Cr.P.C. It is for the concerned Accused to bring it to the notice of the previous conviction and sentence to the subsequent convicting court by invoking the provision under Section 427, Cr.P.C. It is needless to state that as per the provision under Section 427, Cr.P.C., a discretion is given to the subsequent convicting Court to consider and order the sentences to run concurrently with the previous sentence awarded to the same Accused. In the event of the Accused not raising the plea either before the original Court, namely, Trial Court or before the Appellate Court invoking the provision under Section 427, Cr.P.C. due to inadvertence or under other circumstances, the Accused cannot be left at lurch without any remedy. 13.0. It is pertinent to refer to the following decisions rendered by the other High Courts in respect of the issue involved in this matter. 13.1. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. Reported in 1987 Cr.L.J. 1621 has held as here under:- “10. ....... The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction suo motu or in exercise of its inherent power under S.482, can direct the sentences to run concurrently as provided under S.427, Cr.P.C., even though the convictions and sentences that have been passed by the Additional Sessions Judges of different Sessions Divisions have become final.”” 3. In view of the above order of the Division Bench, the present Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the sentences passed in C.A.Nos.399 of 2004, 400 of 2004 and 401 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.II, Coimbatore is ordered to run concurrently.